Dr PR

Thanks for the comments! I have developed a deck plan for an 80 ton revenue cutter at 1:48 scale. I used "Figure 32. A United States Revenue Cutter, 80 Tons, 1815" on page 195 of Howard Chapelle's The History of American Sailing Ships as the basis for this plan. The cutters Surprise and Dallas may have been constructed with these plans. The scale at the bottom is marked in one inch increments (four scale feet at 1:48 scale). The model is 17 inches from Fore Peak (FP) to Aft Peak (AP), or 68 feet between perpendiculars at 1:1 scale. Red lines were taken from the existing model hull. Blue lines are features to be added to the deck. I will add to these fittings as I go, and perhaps make some modification to use some of the fittings in the kit. There were two pumps just aft of the main mast, and the galley stack protruded through the forward hatch. One major difference between the model and the 80 Ton cutter designed by William Doughty is the bulwarks along the sides. Doughty's vessel had sides (almost) flush with the deck and stanchions and lifelines along the sides. See the images on pages 187 and 190 in Chapelle's book. The drawings of Doughty's 80 ton cutters are shown without rat lines and a minimum of standing rigging. I will have to figure out a sail plan for the ship. I have ordered Chapelle's Baltimore Clipper: It's Origin and Development (1965 printing). Maybe it will have sail plans and rigging information. Phil

Now I have the hull about ready for planking the deck. But I still haven't decided what I will build. The kit plans show five hatches on the main deck - four with gratings and one solid hatch under the tiller. Six small cannons are arranged along the sides, with one larger cannon on the centerline midships. Looking at the plans for American Baltimore clipper type revenue cutters, all of these ships had a low deck house at the stern with a companionway and a skylight. They all had a small hatch forward between the fore mast and the bowsprit step, often with Charlie Nobel - the galley stack - protruding through the hatch. They all had one larger hatch midships between the two masts. NOTE: In Chapelle's "The Baltimore Clipper" on page 85 there is a deck plan for the British vessel Musquidobit with many hatches and no deck house similar to the Mantua plans. Apparently the ship was the American privateer Lynx that was captured and renamed when placed into British service. The length (between perpendiculars) to beam width ratio is 3.81:1 for the kit. I examined drawings for 13 Revenue cutters and found the average length to width ratio to be 3.83:1, with a range of 2.72:1 to 4.74:1. So the hull dimensions are about right. Assuming that the kit is 1:40 scale, the length between perpendiculars is 56.7 feet, and the beam is 15 feet. A number of ships were built about this size, with a displacement from 70 to 80 tons. Armament for the revenue cutters varied quite a bit, with 6 to 14 guns. The guns ranged from 6 to 12 pounder cannons, and in some cases 18-24 pound carronades. But in the early 1800s a single centerline large bore pivot gun gained favor. Old traditions die hard, and the powers that be favored broadsides with many cannons. The overall weight of all these cannons restricted the size - and effective range - of these guns. But some of the revenue cutters were outfitted with one large bore pivot gun between the masts. Such weapons were more favorable on fast ships like the cutters that could control an engagement, closing to range for their large guns while remaining out of range of an enemy's smaller guns. It is interesting that it took almost a century for naval architects to appreciate the value of a few large guns in rotating mounts instead of broadsides of many smaller caliber guns. It took the battles of the Spanish-American War (1898) and the Russo-Japanese War (1904) to prove than the large batteries of small guns were essentially worthless. Naval engagements in these wars were fought at the maximum ranges of the large caliber guns. Taking this lesson to heart, the British built the HMS Dreadnought and made all other capital ships obsolete over night. So what should I build? A battery of several broadside cannons on carriages, or carronades, a centerline pivot gun, or a combination of these? The kit came with six small cannons and one large cannon, all on carriages. None of these parts resembled carronades, so it will have to be cannons. The small cannons looked really small. Using the dimensions of the parts, at 1:40 scale they would be 3 pounders - much smaller than what the revenue cutters were fitted out with. Furthermore, the bulwarks of the kit were pretty low, and the muzzles of the supplied guns and carriages would be only slightly below the cap rail on the bulwarks. It looks like Mantua just grabbed existing parts from other kits and tossed them into this kit. What about the single large cannon? Many of the revenue cutters built after 1800 had just one large pivot gun on the centerline between the masts. At 1:40 scale the larger cannon in the kit is about the size of a 6 pounder. At 1:48 scale it could be a 9 or 12 pounder. I haven't found any references telling the size of the pivot guns on the revenue cutters, but they would have been of larger caliber than the carriage guns, and some cutters did carry 12 pounders in some mount. This brings up the question of what scale to build to - 1:40 or 1:48? At 1:40 the ship is about 57 feet long with a beam of 15 feet, the size of a 70-80 ton cutter. At 1:48 it is 68 feet long with a beam of 18 feet, about the size of a 80-100 ton cutter. The hull proportions are OK for either scale. At this point I could build to either scale. But at 1:48 I can use the larger cannon supplied with the kit as a 12 pounder pivot gun. An 80 ton revenue cutter was designed in 1815 that was 67 feet long, with a beam of 19 feet, and a single pivot gun. That looks like a good fit for this hull! Besides, 1:48 is 1/4 inch per foot, and that is much easier to work with than the 0.3 inch per foot at 1:40 scale. So it will be a 1:48 scale 80 ton revenue cutter with a deck house and a single 12 pounder pivot gun! Phil

I have been working on the hull to add frames at the transom and the waterways prior to planking the deck. The first problem I encountered was curving the waterway planks at the bow. After reading the tutorials on the forum and some other postings I wasn't sure what technique would be the best. But all of the techniques had two things in common - heat and moisture. So I took a simple route. After cutting the planks I just submerged them in a pot of boiling water for five minutes - heat and moisture. As you can see in the picture, this worked fairly well, and it was simpler than the other techniques. I used pins to hold the curved planks in place. A few clamps were used to prevent the planks from popping up above the bulkheads. After a few hours the planks had dried and retained the curvature. Then they were trimmed to fit in place. The resulting waterways fit nicely inboard of the frame extensions for the bulwarks. These extensions extended down one or two planks into the hull below the main deck and provided rigidity for the bulwarks. Rather than trim them or replace them, I placed the waterway planks inboard of the frames. Then I added short filler planks between the frames flush with the waterways. It is a little rough now, but after everything is sealed, sanded and painted it should look OK. The picture below shows the stern waterway planking and the frame extensions for the transom. The stern planking has been trimmed down to match the side bulwarks. I am working on details that need to be in place before the deck planking is installed. I needed to place the mast steps to achieve the desired rake of the masts. The main mast step (above) and fore mast step (below) both use the same technique. A board on the centerline at the main deck level had a slip fit hole for the mast to pass through. This places the mast at the proper position on the deck. Below this is another board with a square hole to receive the mast foot. The square hole is positioned to establish the desired fore/aft rake of the mast. The lower board rests upon lateral support boards glued to the bulkheads. This lower board is free to move back and forth to establish the port/starboard vertical angle of the masts. After positioning the masts with the desired fore-aft rake and proper transverse vertical angle perpendicular to the deck, the lower boards were glued in place. When the deck boards are added I will make the holes in the decking larger and place wedges around the masts. This is the hull after the waterways and mast steps were added. Here you see the fore and main mast spars seated in place. They are not glued into the mast steps. That's the build so far. Phil

Here are photos of the hull as I left it in the mid 1980s. Hull planking was complete, and it came out pretty good. It wasn't historically accurate (no hooking, etc.), but I didn't know anything about that back then. I was just happy with a smooth surface that could be painted. The kit had 12 pre-cut bulkheads. Near the middle of the hull these were spaced quite a distance apart. Prior experience told me this could lead to problems while planking the hull, so I made three more intermediate bulkheads out of sheet plywood. I also added several extra plywood fillers and strengtheners to make the frame more sturdy. I tapered the planks and added a few stealers to close the gaps. This was my third plank on bulkhead kit, so I was beginning to get the hang of it. I sealed the inside of the hull with a thin two part epoxy paint that airplane modelers use to seal balsa engine supports and firewalls to prevent fuel from soaking into the porous wood. You can see the shiny surface in the photo. The thin epoxy soaked into the wood and flowed between the planks and the bulkheads. Today, 30+ years later there are no cracks in the outer hull surface. The hull is VERY solid! The picture of the bow shows the tapering of the planks. The port and starboard sides were not perfectly symmetrical. It isn't historically accurate (I knew nothing of that in the 1980s) but it did achieve a smooth hull surface suitable for painting. Revenue cutters of the early 1800s had either flat "square tuck" transoms or "round tuck" transoms with curved planking above the rudder. The stern shown in the instructions was neither -sort of a two level square tuck like nothing I have ever seen a drawing of. What I built in the 1980s was neither square tuck nor round tuck. I made the stern with a curved transom, and with the hull planking faired into the transom. This is more like the schooners of the late 1800s and 1900s. I have always loved the lines of these ships. Again, it may not be historically accurate, although a few revenue cutters are said to have curved transoms, but I do not intend to reconstruct it. Again, this is similar to the "V" transom that was introduced in the 1840s - 1850s. In the picture below you can see the additional filler block I added after the last frame of the model to create the rounded transom. The rudder post extends up through the filler block. This is what I had to work with when I restarted the build. All in all, I am not disappointed with the 1980s kit. It supplied the materials and the basic design, even if it doesn't actually resemble the actual revenue cutters of the early 1800s. Now I just have to kit bash it into something more accurate. Phil

I am resuming a build of the Mantua Albatros "Goleta tipica di Baltimora" - a Baltimore clipper, fitted out as a revenue cutter. I started the kit back in the mid 1980s and finished planking the hull. Then other things came along (buying a house, getting married, etc.) that left little time for ship modeling. The partially completed hull has resided on my bookshelf for about 30 years. I really like the lines of these ships so I decided to resume the build, but I am not sure what it will end up being. I am building it to get experience with a few new techniques. NOTE: THE RESULTING MODEL DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY ACTUAL SHIP. I MADE SEVERAL ERRORS IN THE CONSTRUCTION, AND HAVE TRIED TO POINT THESE OUT AS I GO ALONG. BUT I HAVE PUT A LOT OF RESEARCH INTO TOPSAIL SCHOONERS AND REVENUE CUTTERS SO I HOPE THIS THREAD WILL BE USEFUL TO OTHERS. This is the 1980s kit, and it is different from the latest Mantua Albatros kit description on line. The new kit has a false deck, apparently of thin plywood, and the 1980s kit does not. The newer kit seems to have mahogany hull planking, and the older kit used tiglio or lime wood. The older kit came with two drawing sheets, hull construction and sail plan, plus brief instructions. The Mantua web site says the new kit has three drawings, and at least one appears to be the same as the 1980s kit. The 1980s "instructions" are a joke - one page saying to assemble the hull frames, plank the hull, assemble the base, build the masts and finish the rigging - just about that brief! For me this isn't a problem. I have been researching and scratch building plank on bulkhead models since I was a kid. I have searched and found no record of a Baltimore clipper named "Albatros." The kit name suggests Mantua's "famous" ship is just "typical" of a Baltimore clipper. Looking at the plans for the model and plans for actual Baltimore clippers I can see quite a few differences. This raises several questions, and I would appreciate any help you can offer. 1. Scale. The 1980s kit plans and instructions give no scale. Comparing with other ships I guessed it was about 1:64 scale. Some sites say the Mantua model is 1:55 scale, and the latest Mantua web site says it is 1:40 scale. The model is about 27" long (tip of bowsprit to end of the spanker boom), and this is what Mantua says is the length of their latest Albatros model. The waterline (length between perpendiculars) is about 17 inches. This would give a full scale hull length between perpendiculars of: 1:40 - 56' 4" and about 70 tons 1:55 - 78' and about 100 tons 1:64 - 90' 8" and about 180 tons Baltimore clippers were constructed in approximately all of these sizes between 1800 and 1820. Since the model has only six cannons plus one larger gun on the centerline, I assume the 1:40 scale is close. There were several 60 foot ships built. Any thoughts? 2. Mast angles. The Mantua plans show the rake of the fore mast to be 2-3 degrees and the main mast to be 5 degrees relative to the water line. I examined plans and drawings for 17 Baltimore clippers and found the mast rakes to be: Fore mast - 11.5 degrees average, with a range of 7-16 degrees Main mast - 13.75 degree average, with a range of 8-22 degrees The rake of the masts is one of the outstanding characteristics of these ships, and none were as boring as 3-5 degrees! I plan to build it with 11.5 and 14 degree rakes. 3. Deck fittings. The Mantua kit has four hatches with gratings and one flat solid hatch on the deck. Looking through Chapelle's books I see that almost all of the revenue cutters had some form of low deck house and companionway, even the small 30 ton ships. I think I will build deck fittings similar to an actual 70-80 ton revenue cutter. 4. Stern. Most Baltimore clippers had either round tuck or square tuck transoms. A few appear to have had curved transoms. The kit plans seem to show an odd flat stepped square tuck like nothing I see in any of the Baltimore clipper plans. In any case, when I started the kit in the '80s I constructed a curved transom faired into the hull lines, more like some of the later schooners I have seen. It may not be accurate for an 1815 revenue cutter, but I am not going to deconstruct the hull and start over again! The model stern is similar to the "V transom" that was introduced in the 1840s to 1850s (according to Howard Chapelle's The American Fishing Schooners). 5. Colors. The hull was painted with white lead below the waterline. Chapelle says American schooners after the Revolution were painted yellow topside with black trim. In the early 1800s they were painted yellow topside with a broad black stripe along the gun ports. Deck houses were white or light gray, and bulwarks could be red, brown, green, blue, white or varnished. The kit box cover shows a broad yellow stripe along the gun ports with brown/black trim, and yellow bulwarks with brown/black trim. I am inclined to use the broad black stripe along the gun ports (between the main deck and cap rail) with yellow trim above and white below the waterline. The bulwarks will be white or yellow, and the deck furniture white. 6. Deck planking. I am familiar with nibbing, but this may not have come into practice until the mid 1800s. Before that planking was tapered and hooked. I have thought about this, and read the few tutorials on hooked deck planking, and I just don't understand the procedure. If you start planking at the center line and work outwards, you apparently have to curve the outermost plank while laying it and then cut into the previously laid plank to create the hook. Nibbing is a lot simpler! By the 1850s planking on revenue cutters was nibbed, so I guess I could build the ship as a mid 1800s revenue cutter. But I need the practice with the hooking technique for the next build I am planning to make (Rattlesnake). I guess I will create a CAD plan of the deck and practice making the hooked deck planking. I'll post some pictures of the 1980s hull and current modifications later.

Thanks. Looks like I will be hooking the plank ends. Phil

I am working on a Baltimore clipper, late 1700s to early 1800s, American build. I have spent hours looking through threads on the Forum and I am not sure which technique would have been used in America during this period. Would these ships have waterway boards parallel to the bulwarks, with hooked deck planks, or margin boards with nibbed deck planks? Any suggestions? **** Also, I am familiar with 20th Century US Navy nibbing, having served on two ships with wooden decks (it isn't a real ship if it doesn't have wooden decks). It seems the practice was to cut the nib perpendicular to the length of the planks on the ships I was on (a cruiser and a minesweeper). However, I have also seen comments that sometimes the nib was cut perpendicular to the cut in the margin board. Was there any standard for nibbing, or was it just whatever a particular shipyard preferred to do? Phil

After building a couple of plank on bulkhead models and later seeing gaps appear between some of the planks I decided to try something else. I used a two-part liquid epoxy "paint" to coat the inside of the hull planking (single layer planking). Airplane modelers use this paint (actually it is a bit thicker than ordinary paints) to seal balsa engine supports and firewalls so fuel doesn't soak into the wood. It is thin enough to just paint on with a disposable brush - I applied a couple of coats to build up a thick layer. Because it is thin and runny at first it oozes between neighboring planks and fills cracks, and it flows between the planks and the bulkheads. It also soaks into the wood a bit. After it hardens the hull is very strong. You can sand down any glue beads that flow to the outside. I think I also painted a very thin layer on the outside of the planks. It is colorless after it hardens and after it is sanded you can use 0000 steel wool to polish the planking to a nice satin sheen. There was no noticeable discoloration of the wood (and still isn't). As I recall it set in 30 minutes and has almost no odor. After about 20 years now there still are no cracks between planks in the hull. **** I know some people apply fiberglass to the inside of planking, but I think this is overkill, except possibly for hulls that are two or three yards/meters long. A heavy coat of epoxy makes a good seal and holds things together nicely. Phil

I haven't used TurboCAD in years, but I have used it's sister program DesignCAD since 1988. I can think of several ways to achieve what you want to do. Pick the one that you are more comfortable with and that your version of TurboCAD will allow: 1. You can use a version of wrkempson's suggestion. 1A. Create a "surrounding solid" with a cannon barrel shaped hole in it that has a diameter larger than the canon barrel that is equal to 2x the height you want for the insignia extrusion (a radius with 1x the height). Be sure the axis of the hole is contiguous with the axis of the cannon barrel. One way to do this is to make a copy of the cannon and subtract it from a surrounding solid - this gives the proper hole shape in the solid. Then scale the surrounding solid so the hole diameter is larger than the cannon barrel by the desired amount. 1B. Make the insignia extrusion several times as high as you want it and position it so it extends into the cannon barrel as well as into the surrounding solid. 1C. Subtract the surrounding solid from the insignia extrusion. This will produce the desired outer curved surface for the insignia. 1D. Make a copy of the cannon barrel and subtract it from the insignia extrusion to get the proper inside curved surface. OR Just "solid add" the insignia extrusion to the cannon barrel to get a single solid - what you need for 3D printing. 2. Another way to get the desired curved insignia extrusion is to use your original insignia extrusion to create a curved surface on the cannon barrel, and then extrude it. 2A1. Find the intersection of the insignia and cannon barrel. This will be an outline of the insignia on the barrel surface. 2A2. Convert this outline to a surface. 2A3. Extrude the curved surface to the desired height. OR 2B1. Make a copy of the cannon barrel and subtract it from the insignia extrusion. 2B2. Explode the insignia extrusion solid and eliminate all parts except the lower surface contiguous with the surface of the cannon barrel. 2B3. Extrude the lower surface by the desired height. Phil

That's all for now. Someday I will create a 3D model of the Kaman SH-2B Seasprite helo that the ship carried, but right now I do not have very good drawings and dimensions to work from. The next step it to start creating the plans for the actual 1:96 scale model. Phil

RADARS The ship carried a collection of radars. I have data sheets and drawings for most of them, and the service manual for the AN/SPS-10. Each antenna was a model unto itself. AN/SPS-10 Surface Search Radar The SPS-10 was the primary surface search radar, used to detect ships and low flying aircraft and missiles. On the OK City the horizon was about 13 miles at the height of the SPS-10 antenna. The radar could track targets above the horizon out to about 100 miles. It was very sensitive when tuned properly. On one occasion we tracked flocks of birds a mile or two away. On another occasion when we had excellent atmospheric "tunneling" over the horizon I tracked an aircraft carrier at Yankee Station in the Gulf of Tonkin at a distance of 65 miles. The SPS-10 operated at 5.42 to 5.825 GHz with a 285 kW peak power. The antenna carried a AN/UPX-27 Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) dipole on the "spider" arm that held the feed horn. This is the rod with the square kink in it, and the surrounding reflector rods. Pathfinder Navigation Radar We had a Raytheon Pathfinder radar for navigation in harbors and channels. The SPS-10 had a minimum range of about a mile or so, and couldn't detect close in objects. The Pathfinder was good down to very short distances. This is a very sketchy illustration. I have no data sheets or drawings and only a few fuzzy photos to work from. Some day I will have better information and will be able to make a more accurate model. AN/SPS-43 Air Search Radar The SPS-43 was the primary air search radar. It had an effective range out to 300 miles for high flying planes and missiles. The minimum range for low flying planes was limited by the horizon. In Vietnam I used the 43 to track B-52 flights from Thailand to targets in North Vietnam. The huge slab sides of the B-52 were "anti-stealth" - they showed up as large bright blips on the radar screen. They were called "Arc Light" missions for good reason! The "bed spring" reflector had a "W" shape cross section behind an array of ten pairs of dipole antennas fed by a complex coaxial transmission line system with power dividers to feed each pair of dipoles the same amount of radiated power. The SPS-43 operated in the VHF band at 200 MHz with 180 kW peak output. I finally found a few high resolution photos to allow me to work out the details of the antenna and support pedestal. The short rectangular antenna at the top is an AT-352/UPA-22 IFF Interrogator antenna. AN/SPS-30 3D Height Finder Radar The SPS-30 was an air search radar that had altitude detection capabilities. Altitude information from the 30 was fed into the missile guidance computers for intercept calculations. The SPS-30 also served as a secondary air search radar. An AS-791/UPA-43 IFF Interrogator antenna located on the aft radar tower platform was slaved to the SPS-30. The SPS-30 had a large oval parabolic dish reflector. In front of the reflector, at the end of the long support arm, was an "organ pipe" scanner. A waveguide connection in the scanner rotating at 240 to 2400 RPM fed the RF energy into twenty parallel vertically stacked waveguides leading to the feedhorns. Each feedhorn radiated RF energy at a slightly different angle to the reflector, resulting in 20 different beams reflected at different elevations. Returning signals from a target reflected off the dish into the respective feed horn, allowing the system to determine the vertical angle from the antenna to the target. From this angle and the range to the target the elevation was calculated. The antenna could be rotated for air search operation or it could be aimed to track a single target. The entire rotating antenna dish and support arm could be elevated to track targets through a wide range of elevations. The mechanisms of the antenna were supported on a pedestal that had a gimbal system to compensate for roll and pitch of the ship to keep the antenna aimed at the target being tracked. Dual electric motors positioned the antenna for roll and pitch compensation. The SPS-30 operated in the S band from 3.4 to 3.6 GHz with a peak output power of 2.5 megawatts. It had an effective range of 240 miles. AN/SPG-49 Missile Tracking Radar The ship carried two SPG-49 tracking radars. The SPG-49 was a 19 feet high, 17 feet wide, 22 ton monster. The 49s had C band monopulse tracking radars and continuous wave (CW) illumination radars combined into the one antenna. The system performed three functions. During target acquisition the antenna radiated 3 megawatt pulsed bearing and azimuth sweeps to determine range, bearing and altitude of a target. After the target had been acquired the antenna switched to a pulsed 3 megawatt narrow beam tracking radar. When a missile closed range to a target the antenna also radiated a 5 kilowatt CW illumination beam that carried target identification information for the missile to home on. All of the transmitters and receivers were housed inside the antenna shell. The mechanism consisted of four assemblies. The truncated cone base was mounted on the ship with an accuracy of +/- 0.035 inch vertical relative to the axis of the missile launching system. The base contained a hydraulic drive to rotate the "U" shaped yoke around the vertical axis on the base. The yoke carried dual electric motors to drive the gimbal that rotated around the horizontal axis. The antenna housing rotated around the vertical relative to the gimbal by two sets of dual electric drive motors. A coarse bearing was maintained by the rotation of the yoke, but the motors on the gimbal allowed the antenna housing to be rotated side to side quickly and with better precision. The antenna carried a closed circuit television camera that was used for antenna alignment. It could also be used to track short range targets visually. The Talos missile had a range of 130 nmi and the SPG-49 had a maximum range of 150 nmi. Tracking information from the 49s fed the missile guidance computer for calculation of the intercept position. For more details of the SPG-49 construction and operation use this link: https://www.okieboat.com/SPG-49 description.html AN/SPW-2 Missile Guidance Radar The ship carried two SPW-2 "radars." The SPW-2 wasn't exactly a radar. It transmitted a narrow guidance beam that the beam riding Talos missile followed. The missile guidance computer calculated an intercept point ahead of the target position and used the SPW-2 to drive the missile to the intercept point. The missile transmitted position and identification signals that the SPW-2 received. The received signals from the missile fed the guidance computer to track the missile. The SPW-2 had a small optical telescope that was used for alignment. It also had a platform on top that could carry a closed circuit television camera, but we didn't have the TV cameras on the SPW-2s while I was aboard. The television camera could be used for alignment and to visually track the missile in flight at close range. Mk 25 Gun Fire Control Radar The Mk 25 electronics were housed in the Mk 37 gun director, with the antenna on top. It was used to determine bearing, elevation and range to targets that were engaged with gunfire. For direct fire missions with visible targets it tracked the target. For indirect fire missions with targets hidden behind hills it tracked a known point on land for reference in calculating the range and bearing to the target. The Mk 25 operated from 5.2 to 10.9 GHz with a peak power output of 50 KW. It could track targets out to 50 nmi. Phil

Jaager has a good point. You can't take a flat print and map it directly onto a curved surface. That's where 3D modelling has it's virtues. However, going from a 3D model and "flattening" it onto a 2D print is a VERY complex operation. Many (most) CAD programs cannot do this (one of the members of the DesignCAD Forum wrote a macro that will flatten designs, but creating the design so it will flatten correctly is still tricky). Programs designed for sheet metal stamping can open up 3D designs for cutting out of flat metal sheets, but those programs usually aren't design programs. Having said this, I doubt that the deck camber is significant enough to cause problems going from a 2D design. You can measure the deck width midships and at the deck ends and use those measurements as the widths on the 2D drawing. Then just taper the lines accordingly so the planks come out correctly. Here are a couple of examples of (relatively modern) deck planking done in CAD, one with curved planks and one with nibbing. Make no mistake, each plank and grout line has to be drawn individually. It probably doesn't take as long as actually fitting and cutting the real planks, but it does take quite a bit of time, and that adds to the overall modelling time. On the other hand, I think it is fun, and when (if) I ever get around to fitting the deck on my 1:96 model I will have a pretty good idea what I am in for. Phil

AFTER SUPERSTRUCTURE AND TOWER For the CLG conversion everything above the main deck aft of the midships superstructure was removed. The triple 6"/47 turrets #3 and #4, dual 5"/38 gun mounts #54, #55 and #56, the aft Mk 34 and Mk 37 directors and the deck houses around them, and the aircraft catapults and crane were scrapped. In their place a huge armored missile house was built on the main deck and a new after superstructure and tower were built on top of the missile house. The entire after deck house was part of the Talos guided missile launching and guidance system. The missile house contained the Mk 7 Guided Missile Launching System where the missiles were stored and serviced. The house was made of 1 1/2" Special Treated Steel (armor plate). Including 46 Talos missiles and boosters the house added 400,000 pounds on the main deck. This didn't help stability problems! Missiles were prepared for launching inside the house and then moved onto the Mk 7 launcher rails, passing through armored blast doors in the end of the house. The upper doors carried spanner rails to mate the launcher rails to the launching system rails inside the house. For more information about the Talos launching system go to this link: https://www.okieboat.com/Talos launching system.html The deck house on top of the missile house contained Weapons Control, where the Talos system was operated, and radar rooms for the SPS-30 3D height finder radar, the two massive AN/SPG-49 missile tracking radars and the two AN/SPW-2 guidance transmitter antennas. Talos was a long range (130 nmi.) Mach 2.7 missile designed to intercept aircraft and missiles at altitudes from 50 feet to 75,000 feet. It had an anti-surface ship capability, and an anti-radiation (radar) ARM capability. For these missions it carried a conventional expanding rod warhead. It also had a 2 KT nuclear warhead that could be used against air, surface and shore targets. For more information aout the Talos missile see: https://www.okieboat.com/Talos missile.html Talos was the first anti-aircraft missile system designed by the US Navy, beginning in 1945 before the end of WWII. The program actually spun off the shorter range Terrier missile which was the first to enter service. Talos was a massive system that was installed on only a few cruisers. It was replaced by the newer AEGIS missile system. You can see the stowage locations for the two 7th Fleet 28 foot personnel boats and their cradles. There were two of these little snaking winches, port and starboard, that were used to haul the 28 foot personnel boats and carriages around the top of the missile house. It was the smallest of the ship's winches, with just an electric motor and gear system and no hydraulics. I modeled it from photos and dimensioned sketches made on the USS Little Rock CG-4 museum ship. It was also used to transfer missile warheads into the missile house through hatches in the deck at the rear of the missile house. The after radar tower was much simpler than the other two towers. It was positioned above the radar room for the AN/SPS-30 3D height finder and air search radar. In addition to the SPS-30 antenna an AS-791/UPA-43 Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) interrogator antenna (below left) was mounted on a platform wing. It was slaved to the SPS-30 to allow IFF interrogation of targets. An AS-979A/UKR telemetry antenna (below right) was mounted on a platform extension at the rear of the tower platform. I think (but I am not certain) that this was the antenna used to receive telemetry information from Talos missiles in flight. The missiles sent back airspeed, altitude, fuel consumption, wing motion and radar proximity fuze information to allow analysis of the flight. On the ship's centerline on top of the forward end of the missile house was a large contraption called the Fleet Active Shuttle Transfer (FAST) crane (below). It was designed to operate with similar equipment on replenishment ships to transfer Talos missiles to the OK City's missile magazine. It was capable of transferring a missile or booster every 90 seconds. The operator worked in a small booth at the aft end of the midships superstructure on the O3 level. Missiles would arrive on a shuttle that rode a highline strung between the FAST crane and the FAST system on the replenishing ship. The missiles and boosters were attached to strongbacks carried by the shuttle. The FAST crane would capture the shuttle and strongback, A pantograph arm on the FAST crane lowered the strongback and missile/booster into position above a strikedown elevator (yellow in the images above). The elevator captured the missile and the strongback was released. Then the missile was lowered into the magazine at the forward end of the missile house. The pantograph arm raised and sent the strongback and shuttle back for another load. That's the way it was supposed to work. In reality the FAST crane was a piece of junk. It was exposed to the worst of weather conditions and the complex hydraulic and electrical system failed during transfers more often than not. The real problem was not with the machinery - the Navy did not have enough trained personnel to maintain it. Many complex systems were introduced into the navy in the 1950s and 1960s - nuclear submarines, nuclear powered ships, nuclear weapons, sub launched ballistic missiles, surface to air missiles, jet aircraft with complex avionics systems, air to air and air to surface missiles, and many new types of radars. There were not enough intelligent people joining the Navy and not enough training facilities to train them. First priority went to nuclear submarines and the air wings. There was a chronic shortage of trained personnel on all other units. We just didn't have enough trained men on the OK City to maintain the missiles, launching system, radars, guns and other systems to spare anyone to baby sit the FAST system. The FAST crane was removed in late 1971 and only the kingpost at the center remained. We used the FAST kingpost and burtoning winch for underway replenishment of missiles and powder for the guns. The FAST crane is the reason I decided to model the ship as it was in the summer of 1971, just before the FAST crane was removed. I wanted to model it. Phil

SMALL BOATS The ship had a good collection of small boats even after the weight reduction measures that eliminated two of the 40 foot utility boats. In addition to the ship's complement of four boats, when the ship served as 7th Fleet flagship it carried two additional boats on portable cradles atop the missile house (described later). Plans for most of the Navy's small boats and auxiliaries that were used in the mid 20th century are available from the Barbour Boat Works Inc. records (#758) at the J. Y. Joyner Library at East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA. https://digital.lib.ecu.edu/11208 40 Foot Personnel Boat Mk 4 This boat was used to ferry personnel from ship to shore or to other ships. 40 Foot Utility Boat Mk 2 The utility boat was used for many things. We used it to carry the crew to shore for liberty and to bring back personal belongings that were purchased in places like Hong Kong. The center benches folded to make room for large cargo. 26 Foot Motor Whaleboat Mk 10 The whaleboat was used to carry personnel and mail between ships and to shore. It was also launched during man overboard drills - and the real thing - to fish people out of the ocean. 28 Foot Personnel Boat Mk 6 Captain's Gig This boat was assigned to the USS Oklahoma City, and served as the Captain's gig. 28 Foot Personnel Boat Mk 6 Admiral's Barge While the 7th Fleet staff was aboard the ship carried the Admiral's Barge on a portable boat cradle . It was stowed on top of the missile house aft. It was tricked out with more details and chrome than the other boats. 28 Foot Personnel Boat Mk 6 7th Fleet Staff Boat The 7th Fleet Staff Boat was used by the Chief of Staff and other 7th Fleet officers - there were lots of them! It was tricked out better than the Captain's Gig, but not quite as nice as the Admiral's Barge. It was also stowed on a portable boat cradle aft on the missile house. The portable boat cradle was another challenge. I have found no plans but I do have several good photos of the cradles used on the OK City. The ship had two snaking winches on the missile house that were used to drag things around. They were used to move the boat and cradle from the stowed position on the after part of the missile house top to the forward part of the missile house top where the boats could be lowered and raised using the boat booms. Phil

If all you need is dimensioned 2D plans there are several free or cheap CAD programs that will do that. With any program it is very important to have a user's forum where you can ask experienced users how to do something. It is also important that the forum be open to all without charge. I can recommend the 2D version of the program I use, DesignCAD. It has a very active user forum with members from all around the globe. The tech support people and programmers monitor the forum and chime in to answer questions experienced users haven't answered. I should add that I have been using the program since 1988 and I am a volunteer beta tester for the program, so I am a bit biased. I do not have any other connection with the company, and I am not a stock holder - just a user. Have a look at the forum: http://forum.designcadcommunity.com/ You do not have to be a member to ask questions. Go ahead an ask the forum members what program they would recommend for 2D drafting. You might be surprised to hear other programs recommended! Be patient - the forum has been a bit slow for the last few days. This is not normal. Here is a link to the program's web site: https://www.turbocad.com/designcad/designcad-2018.html It costs $50.00 US. Phil

MIDSHIPS RADAR TOWER This tower originally carried a radar antenna, but it was removed to reduce topside weight. The basic structure was similar to the forward radar tower. The tower rested upon the top of the O3 level radar room. Well, it was a radar room while the 3D radar antenna was on the tower, but after the antenna and associated radar equipment were removed the compartment became an office with very good heating and air conditioning. The large vent stack on the starboard side of the compartment was Charlie Noble. The arms extending from the deck house sides were the rests for the stowed boat booms. The platform at the top of the tower carried four 35 foot whip antennas and a few other smaller antennas. A short stub mast carried the ship's Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) antenna in the dome. It was used by helicopters to determine the range and bearing to the ship. It was also used by other ships to facilitate rendezvous. Another mast at the forward edge of the platform carried a few more antennas and the ship's AN/URD-4 radio direction finder at the top that was used for search and rescue operations. This mast was hinged about half way up so it could be folded sideways. There were a few bridges the ship might have to pass under that were lower than the raised mast. Phil

MIDSHIPS SUPERSTRUCTURE Like the forward superstructure, almost everything from CL-91 was removed amidships, leaving the aft smoke pipe and its supporting structure. Then a new superstructure was built around it to support the new midships radar tower. The blueprints for the original CLG conversion included a 3D radar on top of the tower and more antennas on a platform just below the top. It had large double level boat davits port and starboard midships that each housed a 28 foot personnel boat on the bottom level, and a 26 foot motor whale boat above that. It also included double nested boats on the boat decks, with two 40 foot utility boats on the port side and a 40 foot personnel boat nested over a 40 foot utility boat on the starboard boat deck. The ship was very top heavy and rolled badly in even moderate seas. After a year or so in service the ship went back into the yards for a 15 month overhaul to reduce topside weight. The 3D radar was removed and replaced by the SPS-30 3D radar on the after tower. Most of the other antennas at the top were moved to lower places on the forward radar tower. The double level boat davits were removed and replaced with one single level gravity davit on the starboard side that carried one motor whale boat. Two of the 40 foot utility boats were eliminated, and one 28 foot personnel boat (the Captain's gig) was nested over the remaining 40 foot utility boat on the port boat deck. Only the 40 foot personnel boat remained on the starboard boat deck. No other CLG was modified to this extent. The forward part of this superstructure contained living quarters for the CPOs and the trash burner. The aft part was a collection of shops and offices. At the aft end of the deck house were two kingposts port and starboard. Each had a large boat boom that was stowed along side the deck house when not in use. Between the kingposts, to the port of the ship's center line, was a small cabin to control the FAST crane (described later in the after superstructure section). Three winches were located on the O3 level aft of the compartment below the tower. Two topping winches (left above) were used to raise and lower the boat booms. The burtoning winch (right above) was the heavy lifter that was used for highline transfers (described later in the after superstructure description). The image above shows the starboard boat boom with rigging to the topping winch on the O3 level. Below the boat deck with the 40 foot personnel boat was the starboard boat winch on the main deck. Another boat winch was below the port boat deck. Cable from these winches was rigged to blocks at the end of the boat booms. Boom vangs (lines to swing the boom out and back) were rigged to the sides of the superstructure and to positions aft on the missile house. The boat winches raised and lowered the boats, but the booms could also be used to lift objects like vehicles, boats or supplies onto the top of the missile house. For in port missile transfers the boat booms lifted missiles and boosters from the pier or from barges and lowered them onto the missile house strike down elevators (described in the after superstructure section). The boat winch (left above) and motor whaleboat winch (above right) were modelling projects in themselves, as were the other two winches. I found patent drawings for the whaleboat winch, but the other three winches were drawn from photos and dimensioned sketches I made on the USS Little Rock CG-4 museum ship. If I believed in conspiracy theories I would swear that the complex mass of piping on the valve block of the boat winch was designed by a diabolical engineer who knew that someday some ship modeller would try to replicate it! The whaleboat davits were a mystery. They were single bank, double arm trackway gravity davits. They weren't on the original Clevelands or on the CLG conversions so they aren't in the blueprints. The Little Rock still has the original CLG two level davits, so my visit there was no help. I looked in all sorts of Navy training manuals and on line sources, and found no pictures or descriptions of these davits. Fortunately I had several good high resolution photos I made of the stowed whaleboat, so I could use photoguesstimation to figure out the dimensions. The davits allowed the boats to be launched without power, using gravity to lower the boat. When stowed, the boat rested upon a strongback that was lowered prior to launching. Launching the motor whaleboat proceeded in several steps. First the straps that tied the boat to the davits were removed to allow the boat to swing free. Next the strongback below the boat was lowered. Then the davit arms were released to slide down the trackways and into position over the side. Then the crew got in and grabbed the rope loops hanging above the boat - just in case something went wrong and they needed to get back aboard. Then the boat was lowered into the water, using the brake on the whaleboat winch to control descent. Recovering the boat was just the reverse procedure, but using the whaleboat winch to haul the boat and davits back into the stowage position. The starboard boat deck (left above) was almost the same as shown on the blueprints, with minor changes. The 40 foot personnel boat rested in a cradle and was tied down when stowed. The port boat deck (right above) was modified significantly when the upper 40 foot boat was replaced by the 28 foot personnel boat. The 40 foot boat rested in a cradle similar to the one on the starboard side. The cradle for the 28 foot boat was hinged to the superstructure on the inboard side. After the 28 foot boat was removed the cradle could be swung up and latched to clear the way for lifting the 40 foot boat. Phil

The web site has a lot of hype and absolutely no specifications. What is the resolution of the 3D printer? What is the minimum step size for the linear positioners? What is the maximum X, Y and Z motion? They say a 500 mW laser is available - from where? What does it cost? They say it will do CNC milling, but don't mention the motor, specs, what kind of tools it takes, etc. Looks like a scam to me. Phil

Alan, I would say there is no "best" program. All drawing and CAD programs are different, using different methods to achieve the same end results. There are two general types of programs you can use. One type is a CAD drafting program, and the other is an illustration program. They are intended for different purposes. Whatever program you decide to use, it will take you quite a bit of time to learn how to use it. And it can be a real distraction from working on your model. CAD programs are used to create detailed dimensioned drawings used for product development and production, driving NC milling machines and lathes, 3D printing and such. They can be used to print 2D construction drawings and blueprints. CAD programs can create 2D and 3D models. They had a great variety of commands for precision drawing. Because they have so many drawing functions it can take a long time to learn to use them. Examples are SolidWorks, AutoCAD and the program I use, DesignCAD 3D MAX. The other type is Illustration programs. These are intended to make pretty pictures, and usually have far superior rendering capabilities to the CAD programs. However, they may not have functions for precision drawing or provisions for creating 2D dimensioned plans, and if they do they are fairly primitive compared to CAD programs. Rhino, Blender and Sketchup are examples. **** What do you want to do? Is your goal to print out 2D deck plans? If so you should be sure that the program you use has these capabilities: 1. Does the program have a 2D drawing mode? This is necessary for 2D plans that you print on paper. 2. Does the program have provisions for drawing in exact scale? Some sketching and illustration programs draw in arbitrary "drawing units" so everything is scaled relative to everything else, but with no actual real world dimensions. 3. Does the program have the ability to print 2D diagrams to scale. Some 3D illustration programs can print images, but only of the 3D models, and only as views with perspective, lighting, shadows, etc.. These are not usable for 2D plans. Phil

I suspect it has had some effect on my brain, too! Phil

SMOKE PIPES The smoke pipes (funnels) should have been easy. The Cleveland blueprint set included many pages of drawings. Unfortunately, some parts were illegible due to poor exposure when creating the microfilm. Fortunately, I found duplicates of these drawings in the microfilm sets for later versions of the ships, built in other yards. Forward Smoke Pipe The left image (above) shows the CLG configuration of the forward smoke pipe, with the O4 level weather shelter for the signals crew. The right image shows the original WWII Cleveland configuration. The WWII ships had both a steam whistle and a steam siren on the platform on the forward smoke pipe, with the associated piping running up the sides of the structure. Hot steam flowed up one pipe and colder steam and condensed water drained back down the other. The blueprints show the whistle and siren in detail. The large boiler pressure relief pipe in the left CLG picture was the same on the original Cleveland ships. The WWII configuration had a searchlight platform port and starboard at the rear edge of the forward smoke pipe at the O4 level. The image on the left above shows the CLG configuration with only the whistle. The right image shows the WWII configuration with the whistle on the left, the siren on the right, and associated piping. Early Clevelands had the hand rails around the top of the funnel running parallel to the catwalk. Later ships from different yards had the handrails as shown around the very top of the opening. When in port we normally had only one boiler (out of four) fired, and the other three cold iron. Each boiler had an uptake to either the forward or aft half of a funnel - a transverse separator plate ran down the length of the funnel to where the uptakes came together. The cold halves of the funnel tops were covered with canvas covers to keep out birds, bugs and the weather, and only the active boiler/uptake flue was left uncovered. The transverse bar running across the top of the funnel had several sets of "lady finger" hooks that the canvas covers fit over, and the outer edges of the covers were laced to the handrails. When another boiler was lighted the cover over that flue had to be removed, and when the former active boiler had cooled the cover was placed over its flue. After Smoke Pipe The aft smoke pipe was basically the same as the forward pipe, but with a few different details The boiler pressure relief pipe was at the starboard rear on all Cleveland ships, including the CLGs. The contraption behind the smoke pipe on the O4 level was a vent exhaust for the radar room. The large pipe running up the forward edge of the funnel was the trash burner smoke pipe. We burned outdated classified documents in the trash burner. The USS Cleveland CL-55 and subsequent ships had the trash burner pipe running up the aft port side of the funnel. Later ships constructed in different yards had the pipe running up the front edge as shown. However, ships built in one yard had the trash burner at a more forward position, with the smoke pipe curving forward over the midships deck house and then running up the aft port side of the forward funnel, along side the boiler relief pipe! This is an easy way to identify Cleveland class ships made in the Newport News Shipyard. Original Clevelands did not have the ladder running up the forward starboard side of the funnel. Instead a ladder came up from the superstructure behind the funnel to the small triangular extension of the catwalk. Although the ladder was added to the forward side of the funnel in the CLG conversions the small catwalk extension was never removed. The original Clevelands had a searchlight platform on forward port and starboard sides of the funnel at the O5 level, and some later ships had a 20mm gun tub on the aft port and starboard sides at the O3 level. The narrow platform at the O5 level is the remnant of the original searchlight platforms. Phil

FORWARD RADAR TOWER I think the first part of the ship I modeled in 3D was the forward radar tower, in 2007 and 2008. The blueprints showed side and front views, with elevations. But the main tubes were angled inward side to side and front to back, so they were longer than the 2D views showed. I could have used 3D trigonometry to calculate the actual lengths, but I realized it would be much quicker and more accurate to model the tower in 3D. Besides, the last time I studied 3D trig was in celestial navigation classes in Officer Candidate School, and that was a long time ago. I don't remember much, and I certainly wouldn't trust my navigation skills (or trig results) today! Counting the main structural members and additional support tubing, as many as a dozen pipes and associated gusset plates came together in some places. I could imagine wasting a lot of time and materials in frustrating attempts to get all the tube lengths right. The 3D CAD model made it easy to figure out the dimensions. And from the model I can determine the 3D angles that all of the parts fit together to make construction jigs. Well, that's the plan. We'll see how I feel about it after I try to put all the pieces together. It looks like it might be a perfect job for 3D printing! The most complex part was the "cloverleaf," a collection of platforms to support some of the electronics counter-measure (ECM) antennas. Again, the blueprints gave plan views, and I had many photos of this structure, but it really helped to be able to put the pieces together in the CAD model. This was especially true because there were many blueprint sheets for the different parts, but no single sheet showed how they all fit together. And, of course, there were some changes to the original 1959 configuration by 1971. After my initial modeling efforts I discovered many additions and changes to the parts of the tower over the years. In 2015 I took up the task again. I included the O5 and O6 level compartments to the tower model because so many details of the tower continued down to these levels. Together they made a single module that was easily stacked upon the lower deck houses. The real impact of my decision to model all of the wiring and plumbing on the ship really came home on this tower. There are 38 antennas on the tower itself, and another dozen on the ECM shack and the outboard platforms (I obtained data sheets with dimensions for nearly all of the antennas). Those 50 antennas all had cables or waveguides running up cable trays and fanning out to the individual antennas. In addition, the ship had a water washdown system designed to spray sheets of water from sprinkler heads to catch radioactive fallout and wash it overboard. The washdown system was shown in the blueprints, but I had to depend upon photos to show how the wiring was routed. The wiring and waveguide routing was very complex (left above). I spent hours scrutinizing many photos to figure it out. Fortunately, while I was aboard the ship I wandered around taking pictures of various parts of the ship in case I might someday want to build a model of it (I have been modeling ships since I was a kid). I also had some photos other crew members sent me over the years, and some off the Internet. Often these photos were of crew members working or lounging at various places on the ship, with really useful background information in them. The washdown system piping (above right) wasn't as complex, but I had to assemble it with a collection of pipe fittings and mounting brackets as shown in the blueprints. As usual, there were a few minor changes in the configuration between the 1959 blueprints and the mid1971 period I was modelling. Otherwise it would have been far too easy! The ECM platforms outboard of the O6 ECM compartment (left) were fairly complex, and because they were added later they were not shown in the blueprints. More "photoguestimation!" But I have several good high resolution images of these structures, often in the background of photos of other things. At the top of the tower were the AN/SPS-43 long range air search radar antenna and the AN/SPS-10 surface search radars. I will discuss the ship's radars in detail in another post. Phil

FORWARD DECK HOUSE When CL-91 was converted to CLG-5 most of the structure above the main deck was removed. For the forward superstructure only a narrow deck house remained from the main deck to the O5 level, including the original Mk 34 man battery director and Mk 37 secondary battery director. The original smoke pipe (funnel) and the O1/O2 level superstructure under it also remained. Then the huge new forward superstructure was built around this original core. The forward deck house was the one of first parts of the CAD model that I started, and almost the last part to be finished. Initially I just wanted to see how all of the decks and house sides fit together, something that was hard to visualize from the blueprints alone. The initial 2008 models are shown here. The OK City had many changes over the years. One of the most visible was the removal of the Mk 34 main battery director and its barbette from the top of the forward superstructure. When it was removed the O5 level deck house was cut back to a few frames forward of the Mk 37 secondary battery director barbette. But a few years later the O5 deck house was extended a bit. None of this was shown in the blueprints and I had to work from photographs to figure out these reconstructions. Another significant change was the addition to the large ECM compartment at the O7 level, extending outboard of the O5/O6 deck house. The original CLG build did not have a deckhouse at the O7 level forward. Then a small ECM house was added between the pipes of the forward radar tower. Later this was expanded to the wider ECM compartment shown here. The Oklahoma City had a huge ECM array that allowed the ship to redirect incoming surface-to-surface missiles, detect and track radio and radar emitters, interrogate Soviet built IFF transponders and even detect enemy aircraft engines running while the planes were still on the runway. Several smaller changes occurred over the years. At the port aft corner a new house extension was added at the main deck level. Then a few years later a similar house extension was built at the starboard rear main deck level. Some of the windows on the O2 level Flag Bridge were covered to create new office space inside, and then new compartments were added outboard on the O1 level below the Flag Bridge wings. Finally, the open bridge was enclosed shortly after the ship was commissioned. I had to piece together all of these details and the CAD model seemed to me to be the best way. Eight years later I was putting the finishing touches on the forward deck house. At first it looked relatively simple compared to the aft and midships deck houses I had already finished. But there actually was a tremendous amount of detail on this structure. One of the most difficult parts to model was the Forward Air Control station on the O5 level forward of the Mk 37 director barbette. The 1971 configuration bore little resemblance to the 1959 blueprints. After the Mk 34 director was removed Forward Air Control was completely rebuilt. And then the O5 deckhouse was extended Forward Air Control was rebuilt again. I had to work from photos, and that was a problem. I found several pictures taken from the O5 level - it was a high place with a good view. But no one took pictures of the O5 level! I had only a couple of fairly high resolution photos to work from. I had a few good pictures of the bridge wings and the forward O4 level for the 1971 period. Here are pictures of some of the details on the forward superstructure. The Mk 32 dual 5"/38 gun mount #51 was a carry over from the WWII configuration. The Clevelands got a mixture of versions depending upon what was available at the time of construction. The Mk 32 has the internal training stop buffer. Other Marks had the buffer on the front exterior of the mount. Clevelands had gun house shields made of 3/4" thick Specially Treated Steel (STS) plating. Destroyer gun houses were made of 1/4" plating to reduce weight. Some battleships had 2 1/2" thick shields on the 5" mounts. Mount #51 was removed when the original CL-91 superstructure was cut back. It was then repositioned on the O1 level of the new superstructure at approximately where the #2 6"/47 turret had been on CL-91. The Mk 37 director and barbette had quite a lot of details to model. The director originally had a perforated reflector dish, but this had been replaced with the solid dish shown here by 1971. I stood Director Officer watches in Vietnam, sitting in a chair under the folding canvas cover (it was folded back while the position was occupied). The inside of the director was like an oven, so the other three guys and I spent most of the time sitting on top and catching some rays. It was the highest manned position on the ship and we had a great view of the show. Getting into the director could be an adventure. We could enter the barbette through the door at the O5 level and climb a ladder inside to the director, but it could be pretty hot inside the barbette. Most of the time we climbed the ladders on the outside of the barbette, walked around the foot rings to reach the ladder on the side of the director, and climbed that. But if the ship was rolling a lot you really had to hang on, and if the director was rotating it was pretty tricky. The saluting gun was another modeling problem. I found very few photos to work from. By looking at web sites for other ships and even publicity photos from John Wayne movies I found enough to work with. The saluting guns were positioned at different places on the forward superstructure of the different CLGs. Since we were a flagship and showed the colors in many ports, these guns got a lot of use. They fired 37 mm blank rounds that just made noise and smoke. The searchlight and binnacle show more of the details on the superstructure. The image of the binnacle shows the transparent glass window with the compass card inside. However, on the whole superstructure model I removed the glass. If you put a transparent object in the file, when it is rendered every single part of the model has to be checked to see if it, or its shadow, can be seen through the glass. This increases the rendering time exponentially as the number of objects in the file increases. On one part, that normally took about 5 minutes to render, adding a single small transparent piece of glass increased the rendering time to about two hours! If I included the glass in the binnacle and the bridge windows I doubt that the universe would last long enough to complete a render of the forward superstructure! The Mk 23 Mod 0 Target Designation Transmitter (TDT) was another mystery. The ship had two of these in the Forward Air Control station on the O5 level. However, they always had bags over them in every photo I found. For the longest time I didn't have a clue to what they were. Then a fellow who volunteers to work on the USS Little Rock CG-4 museum ship in Buffalo, New York, sent me some photos of the units on that ship. Thanks to him I could make a pretty detailed model of the TDT. These things were WWII era aircraft tracking devices. A pair of binoculars were mounted in front of the head rest. The operator turned the mount and raised the arm with the binoculars to point at a target. Then he pushed the button in the hand grip at the end of the arm to designate the target for the gunfire control computer. By the Vietnam era fast moving jets and missiles made these obsolete. I don't know if they were ever used while I was aboard. The images below are the ship's Kollmorgan 20x120 binoculars. We had lots of binoculars, but these huge "battleship" binoculars were the ship's binoculars. There were mounts on both the port and starboard sides of the O4 level, near the skivvy waver's (signalmen) stations. These were really good optical instruments. They were normally stored inside and brought out only when needed. However, sometimes when we were in a busy port like Hong Kong these would be mounted, and it was interesting to use them to watch all of the traffic coming and going in the harbor. I had a few moderate resolution photos showing these devices in place on the ship, but I found some great photos on eBay! The AN/SQM-6 antenna was used to receive weather satellite information. Phil

Dennis, I have just looked through you Swan build and it is beautiful. I have thought about learning Blender. It is more of a drawing tool for producing nice images, and your work certainly shows it off well. But your comments help to emphasize the differences between drawing programs like Blender and Rhino and CAD programs like DesignCAD and Solid Works. Only the very expensive programs like Solid Works have any significant rendering capabilities. The inexpensive DesignCAD program has very poor rendering capabilities - basically just shadows with multiple lights. However, it can "map" textures onto surfaces, such as wood grain, concrete, etc. It can also "map" photos onto surfaces to make pictures hanging on walls of architectural designs. But without ray tracing we can't make mirrors, chrome metal, etc. I don't use texture mapping because it causes the program to run much slower, and really doesn't add anything useful for what I am doing. CAD programs work with exact dimensions, and have extensive tool sets for this purpose. They are intended to produce either physical 2D engineering drawings or 3D parts from NC machines or 3D printers. The program will convert any 3D view on screen into a 2D drawing for printing on paper. One of the next steps for me is to use the 3D model to produce 2D dimensioned drawing sheets for all the parts of the ship. That will take a while! Some fellows use DesignCAD to create mechanical drawings, architectural plans, etc. in 3D and then produce the 2D drawings. Then they export the 3D model to another program like SketchUp and use it to produce realistic renderings. One of my long term goals is to use the CAD model to produce walk-around videos. I think I'll need a lot more computing power to accomplish that! Phil

Beautiful work! Just thinking about that rigging makes me shudder - I hate tying knots in CAD! You are a glutton for punishment. Phil